C. Dinyero and A. Guvi v Accolade Holdings

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE              JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/222/2013
HELD AT HARARE ON 14 MARCH, 2013            CASE NO. LC/ H/429/2010
In the matter between



C. DINYERO AND A. GUVI                             –           Applicants
And

ACCOLADE HOLDINGS                                  –           Respondent




Before The Honourable L. Kudya, President
         Honourable E. Muchawa, President
         Honourable P. Muzofa, President


For Applicants     - In person
For Respondent     - In default




KUDYA, L.

      The Applicants in this case are seeking quantification of damages due to

them from the Respondent Company against whom a default judgment was

granted by President Hove.



      On the date of the hearing for the quantification claim, the Respondent

did not avail itself despite service. In this respect reference is made to the

affidavit by Last Gata the Labour Court driver who went to serve the Respondent

on 06 March 2013.       In that affidavit Last states that when he got to the

Respondent’s premises of operations, persons there present refused to accept
                                                    JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/222/2013


the process arguing that a company by the name O.N.P Plastics was now in

operation and not Accolade Holdings which is the Respondent in this matter.

   Last’s affidavit is filed of record. When the court asked both Applicants about

this issue they maintained that Accolade and O.N.P. Plastics are one and the

same company. To that extent they tendered exhibits 1 and 2 which bear the

Accolade Holdings Logo. Being that as it may, the notification to attend a

hearing dated 13 July 2010 also indicates that the venue of the hearing in

question was the O.N.P Plastics Board room.

   As if that is not enough proof of the fact that ONP and Accolade are the same

entity, Alfonce Guvi, one of the Applicants tendered copies of his pay slips which

are also filed of record. These also clearly state they were issued under the

hand of O.N.P as the employer. Even Alfonce’s contract of employment dated 01

July 2003 was endorsed by O.N.P plastics.     In the above regard the court was

satisfied that O.N.P which was approached by Gata to come to court is one and

the same entity with Accodale.

          Respondent therefore, deliberately defaulted on the date of the

quantification hearing. The quantification thus proceeded as an unopposed

application. To assist the court, the lawyer who was assisting the Applicants also

filed of record the quantification of damages document. That document bears

testimony that Applicants addressed their minds to what was legally due to

them.

    The only aspect which the court was of the view that Applicants could not

claim was the amount relating to medical aid.       The pay slip filed of record

showed that this amount was going direct to the service provider. All that the

Applicants would have been entitled to were benefits of treatment and




                                                                                 2
                                                    JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/222/2013


medicines not necessarily to the tune of what they would have put in but,

according to the tariffs which the medical aid society applied.

   In essence, what the Applicants could claim were the expenses they incurred

which they failed to derive value for, from the Medical Aid Society since the

subscription was stopped by the employer. In the result, if the Applicants are in

possession of documents to this effect they can always lodge such and get

payment for them.     Otherwise as the founding affidavit of Guvi stood, the

medical aid claim was without legal foundation.          It should therefore be

deducted from the total amount claimed on the affidavit.

    As regards the rest of the claims, it is the court’s considered view that the

submissions in the founding affidavit sufficiently justify such claims. The court

has accepted the pay slip tendered showing a salary of $229.04 inclusive of shift,

transport, accommodation and service allowances.



IT IS THEREFORE ORDERD AS FOLLOWS:

1. Respondent being in default despite service for the quantification of

   damages hearing and the Applicants’ quantification claim being with merit

   be and is hereby upheld.

2. Respondent is to pay the Applicants as appears below:

   a) 3 months cash in lieu of notice @$229.04 x 3=$687.12

   b).Damages -3 years’ salary being $229.04x36 months =$8245.44

   c).Back pay from July 2010 to January 2013(30 months) being $229.04x

   30=$6871.20

   Grand total for each Applicant $15803.76

   Total for both Applicants =$31607.52

3. No order as to costs.


                                                                                 3
                                                  JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/222/2013




L. KUDYA      ------------------------

President- Labour Court



P. MUZOFA     ------------------------- I AGREE

President- Labour Court



E. MUCHAWA ----------------------- I AGREE

President- Labour Court




                                                                           4